In order to foil a terrorist plot, an FBI agent undergoes a facial transplant surgery and assumes the identity and physical appearance of a terrorist, but the plan turns from bad to worse when the same terrorist impersonates the FBI agent.
A murder inside the Louvre, and clues in Da Vinci paintings, lead to the discovery of a religious mystery protected by a secret society for two thousand years, which could shake the foundations of Christianity.
While Benjamin Gates (Nicolas Cage) is presenting new information about John Wilkes Booth and the eighteen pages missing from Booth's diary, a man by the name of Mitch Wilkinson (Ed Harris) stands up and presents a missing page of John Wilkes Booth's diary. Thomas Gates, Ben's great-grandfather, is mentioned on the page. It shows that Ben's great-grandfather was a co-conspirator in Abraham Lincoln's murder. When doing more research, the conspiracy takes Ben, Abigail Chase (Diane Kruger), and Riley Poole (Justin Bartha) to Buckingham Palace (into which they break). They discover a plank that has early Native American writing on it. The plank has only one symbol that Patrick Gates (Jon Voight) can identify. The symbol is Cibola (see-bowl-uh), meaning the City of Gold. In order to define the rest they have to go to Ben's mother, Patrick's divorced wife, Emily Appleton (Dame Helen Mirren). After thirty-two years, it brings back old arguments. After that, the other clue is in the ...Written by
Despite being in the title, the Book of Secrets isn't mentioned until nearly an hour into this movie's run time. See more »
While sitting in the Gates' household using his laptop, the apple on Riley Poole's Black MacBook is not lit up, yet Riley is working on the laptop. The apple on MacBooks lights up when the screen is on, because the light to illuminate the symbol comes from the light used to illuminate the screen. Therefore, MacBook Poole is working on is asleep or turned off. See more »
Interesting...I liked It, but something feels missing...
First of all, National Treasure, the first one, is one of my favorite movie ever. I love history, specifically American history, and it had clever references and facts about American history that lead to finding the treasure in a way that is not predictable. That being said, I felt something was missing in National Treasure: Book of Secrets. It almost felt like the writers could not think of any new, clever clues for Nicolas Cage to solve or more suspense without action scenes.
First lets look at the positives. This movie was very well-done. The acting was as superb as the first (Nicolas Cage and Justin Bartha are amazing). It was very believable. Also the action scenes are excellent and full of invigorating suspense. The scene near the unexpected end where they had to balanced the steel block thing in the cave was terrific. All the action scenes were awesome: right out of an Indiana Jones movie. Another thing I liked was the ironic humor and sarcasm used by Nicolas Cage's character and other characters throughout the movie that gave it a light, fun feel. With interesting history references and a brilliant score by Trevor Rabin, what could be wrong with it?
You may not agree with me. But I felt that the ending, and a few other scenes were rushed. For example, they spent literally about five minutes in Paris both finding and figuring out the clue. After that they moved on to London, they spent about 15 minutes there, 5 of them were spent finding the clue. It all felt rushed which tended to confuse me. And the ending definitely did not satisfy me. It was too sudden and I felt it was incomplete, even though the movie was over two hours long.
As I think back to some of the scenes in the beginning and middle of the movie, I forget why I included "negatives" because it was so brilliant and I loved it as much as the first one. But then I remember the ending. it just didn't satisfy like the last movie did. I can't explain the nice feeling the first movie gave me: its what the perfect movie gives you I guess. Anyway, I would recommend this to anyone who has scene the first one and anyone who would like a good crime/action/adventure flick with excellent acting with lovable and believable characters. It's a great movie, it just didn't live up to my expectations or the original's
60 of 98 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this